Tim Cook Prefers Settling To Suing and Has a Huge Quarter

An anonymous reader writes "Apple's current legal battles with Samsung encapsulate a large number of patents, innumerable suits and counter-suits, and have resulted in legal motions in 11 jurisdictions across the globe. As you may remember, Steve Jobs in his biography was quite vocal about his intent to go thermonuclear on Android, vowing to spend every last dime in Apple's coffers to destroy Google's mobile OS. But Tim Cook is a bit more level headed about things, expressing during Apple's earnings conference call yesterday that he has has always hated litigation and would much rather settle than to battle in court. The caveat, of course, is that Cook doesn't want Apple to 'become the developer for the world.'" It may not be what Jobs would do, but as zacharye notes, it doesn't seem to be hurting earnings. "Despite early-morning jitters on Wall Street, Apple on Tuesday reported yet another blow-out quarter. The Cupertino, California-based company managed the second most profitable quarter in its history, posting a net profit of $11.6 billion on $39.2 billion in sales. Apple sold 35.1 million iPhones into channels last quarter, along with 11.8 million iPads, 7.7 million iPods and 4 million Mac computers. While the firm continues to dominate the technology industry — Apple is currently the most valuable company in the world — several analysts think Apple is just getting started."

Comments

Developer for the world?

[serviscope_minor]

Developer for the world sounds like a bit of a tall claim.

Apple really don't invent much new stuff. What they are excellent at is combining existing, often poorly implemented, inventions into very well polished consumer products. That's their business and they're very good at it.

But, it shouldn't be subject to patent protection, and their patents tend to be dubious at best.

The other thing is that patents or not, it's an extremely hard thing to copy.

Re:Developer for the world?

[gstoddart]

But, it shouldn't be subject to patent protection, and their patents tend to be dubious at best.

Unfortunately, this is the situation we find ourselves in. Everything is patented, no matter how absurd, and companies are basically performing rent-seeking by suing everyone who makes something resembling one of their "existing, often poorly implemented, inventions" (which as often as not are just copies of other ideas which have been around a while).

The problem is the absurdity of the patent system, much more so than any of the players. They're all playing the same game, and nobody wins in the end except for the big companies.

How much is Microsoft making off every Android phone again?

I don't see how any company could possibly not be getting embroiled in this unless you simply roll over and cough up a percentage of your earnings to any schmuck who comes along and says he's got a patent.

Re:Developer for the world?

[jedidiah]

They don't invent things that deserve a 20 year monopoly and a legal right to run everyone else out of business.

Re:Developer for the world?

[I Read Good]

I wish I had mod points. I'd mod this interesting. Thanks.

Re:Developer for the world?

[alen]

they spent a few years doing research into coding just the right algorithm for an OS to detect a human finger and respond appropriately. its true they don't make or invented the touch screen but finding the algorithm to know when its a real finger and not accidentally touching is patent able.

no one is stopping samsung and others from doing the same thing to find their own algorithm

Re:Developer for the world?

[serviscope_minor]

The problem is the absurdity of the patent system, much more so than any of the players. They're all playing the same game, and nobody wins in the end except for the big companies.

Even the big companies aren't winning, as there is no way to easily defend against patent trolls.

The only people who win are the lawyers.

I don't see how any company could possibly not be getting embroiled in this unless you simply roll over and cough up a percentage of your earnings to any schmuck who comes along and says he's got a patent.

There are many ways of getting embroiled.

One way of avoiding it as much as possible is to only use patents defensively (i.e. only to counter sue if attacked).

Apple are very aggressive, and often attack first.

Re:Developer for the world?

[serviscope_minor]

[citation needed]

or at least more context. Which patent are you referring to?

Re:Developer for the world?

[jedidiah]

> but finding the algorithm to know when its a real finger and not accidentally touching is patent able.

disputable

> no one is stopping samsung and others from doing the same thing to find their own algorithm

Chances are, they already have. It's just the Apple now "owns" the approach regardless of how it was derived. It doesn't matter if I read it in the patent, or if I was able to "re-invent" it myself.

The patent was likely never consulted because of the whole "treble damages" problem. So it is likely that the patent is competely worthless and unecessary.

Your perverse idea of how patents should work allows the first person to file to steal the intellectual work from the rest of the market.

Re:Developer for the world?

[MikeMo]

Ya know, maybe they don't "invent" things. Whatever. One can say for sure that most of the industry tends to copy Apple's, er, um, 'not inventions'. What did smartphones look like before the iPhone? What did tablets look like before the iPad? Aren't all of the ultra books attempted copies of the Macbook Air? For sure, Intel uses the Air as the target .

The point is, whatever you want to call it, Apple does seem to lead the industry (at least recently) and they probably do get a bit tired of seeing everyone make stuff that looks and feels like theirs.

Re:Developer for the world?

[Baloroth]

You mean before and after the LG Prada, right? Which came out before the iPhone and was the first phone ever with a capacitive touchscreen.

Re:Developer for the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a few things new ways of looking at the world come directly from Apple, or employees they have hired and bought their inventions when no one else was looking at them -- not willing to foster these ideas into something tangible.

And most of the stuff Apple has been complaining about have been things that could have been found by others, but weren't. Or complaining that someone takes a surface level idea and tries to ride the coattails of something much more popular to the point if they didn't sue, it would encourage others to create identical devices without having to put the hours in.

I mean, with touch tablets...we all talk about how there really is only one form factor and that others are simply doing what they would have eventually done anyways, reducing the device to solely what was there. And if this is the case, why did every single tablet that came out before look pretty fucking shitty and now all want to try to look like the iPad. Wasn't like it was the first...yet, they took the time to do it right.

As for other patents...I've had two patents in my name over the years (currently my university is fighting to take my name off because I refuse to 'monetize' them). And everyone in my field has come out and publicly shouted that what I did was OBVIOUS to everyone in the field. And it kinda was. Using time tested techniques and putting it together in a unique way that no one else had. Others had worked for 40 years in the field and got angry that these were patentable...the only reason I even agreed to patent it was that I didn't want to get sued by someone else in the future (and sadly, my employer technically has a suit against me now). And yet, they couldn't put two simple concepts together and make it work because everyone was fighting over the fact that they believed in one or the other concept and never thought to work together (both of which long since past the patent...and it WAS a little more than just adding the two together, but once you did and saw the results, you realized you could achieve far more going down this path than anything else).

So yeah, when Apple combines existing inventions and actually makes them work when others that have had a lot more time and budget (at least 5 years ago)...they have done something that no one else could have done. And more to the point, they had the expertise to figure out what was important, and what isn't important. You really don't know a subject until you can make it useful to someone that isn't an expert in the field.

Re:Developer for the world?

[serviscope_minor]

you can patent implementation, not the idea

No, patents protect the idea, copyrights protect implementations.

car companies have all kinds of engine patents yet there are something like 10 different car companies selling cars in the US that all take the same gasoline

The basic idea you are referring to is the Otto cycle and it was indeed patented. The patent has long since expired.

if someone comes out with an idea you can always find a better way with some time and effort.

No, you can't, especially when patents are simply too broad. If someone patents the idea of multitouch on a phone, there is no way of implementing multitouch interfaces on a phone without violating the patent, no amtter how much research you do.

its always the asian companies that only want to rip off someone's work just to sell it for less.

Whereas, American companies want to rip it off, sell it for more, then sue the inventor?

Re:Developer for the world?

[betterunixthanunix]

you can patent implementation, not the idea

According to whom? I do not need to look any further than my own field to know this is untrue: the Diffie Hellman patents were patents on the idea of public key cryptography, and cryptography patents in general are patents on math, not implementations of that math.

Re:Developer for the world?

[dyingtolive]

Sixth one from the left, top row looks predominantly rectangular and all touchscreen. I also find it interesting that they have all of the screens lit up on the left hand side, whereas the right hand side are all blacked out. That certainly goes a long way toward making them LOOK more uniform, not that a mac fan site should be slighted for using clever advertising.

Also, iPhone came out on June 29th, 2007. The N810 in October of 2007 and looked pretty similar. You can't tell me the N810 was in reaction to the release of the iPhone. There had to be a good deal of parallel development time there.

Finally, I bring you about to the LG KE850, which was announced in January, 2007. Seems if you run the circuit, everyone was pretty much doing the same thing at the same time. It's almost as if Apple's a marketing company first and a technology company at about the same time everyone else is. Funny how that works.

Re:Developer for the world?

[alen]

its not like the math was always known. someone had to spend years in research discovering that math and the algorithms

if you want to make a crypto patent just devote your life to finding a better way. someone is always making something new. nvidia/intel/amd are always making better CPU's/GPU's even though they patent their designs

Re:Developer for the world?

[dyingtolive]

Oh, and for completeness sake, the Storm came out about a full year after the N810 (which I suppose technically isn't a phone), but RIM didn't end up on the bottom of the dogpile by being early adopters. Probably dismissed the whole "usable phone" thing as a consumer fad and underestimated the desire in the corporate world.

Re:Developer for the world?

[serviscope_minor]

Ya know, maybe they don't "invent" things. Whatever.

Yes.

One can say for sure that most of the industry tends to copy Apple's, er, um, 'not inventions'.

Designs. The word you are looking for is designs.

What did smartphones look like before the iPhone?

Well, in 1992, you had the IBM Simon which was a blank slab with nothing but a touchscreen. Due to the manufacturing tech and other constraints of the time, it was quite thick and a bit lumpy, because the basic aerial and speaker tech was not advanced. But bsaically, it's a cuboid with a screen and nothing else.

Then, later you had the LG Prada which was basically the same idea with 2006 era manufacturing and phone tech. That makes it a rather slicker cuboid with a screen and little else.

So yes, Apple didn't invent the idea or basic design, but they produced a very refined version of it.

What did tablets look like before the iPad?

Er, pretty featureless cuboids with little else but a screen and as thin as possible given the state-of-the art manufacturing tech, like the Hp-Compaq TC1100?

Aren't all of the ultra books attempted copies of the Macbook Air?

Again, they were not the first company to make thin or light laptops.

You're again confusing inventing the original idea with producing a good or even leading implementation of the idea. The latter is what Apple do, not the former. There's nothing wrong with that.

Re:Developer for the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as Apple are putting together off the shelf components made mostly by Samsung, and basing their OSes on OSS products, what exactly are Apple inventing?

They're the masters of paid sycophants and consumer cult control, but religion is well ahead of them in that game.

Maybe they should stick to making a better product, the market will selected them naturally. When you resort to doctoring images to present as evidence in court when trying to block alternatives no one is really going to bother with, you can see how pathetic their level of "invention" really is. Maybe their 'invention" is the fabrication of false "facts"?

Re:Developer for the world?

[Xylantiel]

Right, because Apple is the only one allowed to make clean, sleek designs. So anything clean and sleek is a copy of an Apple product. If that's not transparently ridiculous, nothing is.

I see someone else has already pointed out that your claims about phones and tablets are hollow. Current smartphones are very much like a palm from the late '90's on steroids. Exactly what any of us would have come up with given the resources. Basically capacitive touch screens made on-screen keyboards usable and the rest is history. Apple was in the right place at the right time with a good product. They deserve credit for good products and infrastructure, but not monopoly protection -- which is what they are requesting in the courts.

Re:Developer for the world?

[serviscope_minor]

And yet the iPhone sold better...hmmm....

Your point?

Re:Developer for the world?

[dyingtolive]

That's not the point Baloroth was trying to make. The claim was presented that there was no phone that looked like the iPhone prior to the iPhone coming out. That is false.

All your argument suggests is that Apple is better at advertising and marketing.

Re:Developer for the world?

[betterunixthanunix]

Except that mathematics was never supposed to be patentable, regardless of how hard someone worked on it.

Re:Developer for the world?

[serviscope_minor]

Quite a few things new ways of looking at the world come directly from Apple, or employees they have hired and bought their inventions when no one else was looking at them -- not willing to foster these ideas into something tangible.

Such as?

And most of the stuff Apple has been complaining about have been things that could have been found by others, but weren't.

Again, such as?

And if this is the case, why did every single tablet that came out before look pretty fucking shitty

Simple: they didn't. Many did, but there were a few good looking ones.

Have you ever seen a Palm TX, by the way?

Re:Developer for the world?

[HeckRuler]

They looked like the Palm Pilot you little whippersnapper!

Re:Developer for the world?

[morgauxo]

First, an algorithm is simply a series of steps that accomplish a goal. That series of steps would have accomplished the same goal before it was ever patented. Nothing new was brought into the world just because somebody thought of the algorithm and then patented it. Also, in most cases lately somebody already DID think of it, they just didn't do it in a mobile device, or on the internet or blah blah blah

Second, for any goal, including your example there are probably only a finite number of possible algorithms to achieve the goal. This certainly can prevent others from doing the same. Even if there are many ways of doing something there is usually only one best way and occasional a few best ways.

As a consumer, when company X has the patent on the best algorithm to do A, company Y has the one for doing B and company Z for C then whose device do I buy? Either they are all overpriced due to money spent fighting in court, paying settlements and licensing fees or they all suck because each is only good at either A, B or C when what I want it for is D, the combination of A, B and C.

Re:Developer for the world?

[miltonw]

Correlation does not indicate causation.

Apple's iPhone was not the first phone with that form factor.

Re:Developer for the world?

[dyingtolive]

I'm not sure I've ever seen a strawman so clearly before in my life.

http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beforeandafteriphone.jpg [netdna-cdn.com] Seeing what cell phones looked like prior to, and after the launch of, the iPhone is fairly amazing.

?

Re:Developer for the world?

[Ihmhi]

They don't invent things that deserve a 20 year monopoly and a legal right to run everyone else out of business.

Does anybody, really?

Re:Developer for the world?

[gl4ss]

no, air's are attempted copies at high end sonys. you seriously suggesting that air invented the ultrathin notebook segment? you don't think that the whole segment is obvious? you want to know why they even came up with it? they couldn't figure out how to make the metal macbook("pro") not eat your wrists with it's 90 degree sharp angle(that would be admitting that the design is shit, which it is).

what did phones look before iphone? uh. I guess you for some reason didn't want to link a htc winmo that lacked kb, of all the htc's you could have chosen from you chose the one that looks like an e71. could have chosen lg's too.

no, they didn't invent ipod like devices either. they just jumped on the market when parts from parts manufacturers hit a sweet spot. that's their fucking business - that's pretty much all they do. mass buy components when they hit a sweet spot and then upmark them and sell them to consumers.

soon enough, you'll have a macbook air that has a magnetically attachable keyboard element and doubles as ipad.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Advantage_X7500

Re:Developer for the world?

[quacking duck]

No one deserves a 20-year patent monopoly. Or at least no software does.

But that's the way the patent system is set up. We should be somewhat thankful they never increased the time limit on protection, like they did copyrights.

Until this flawed system is fixed, and fixed *properly*, these dumb patents will continue to be filed, granted, contested, and litigated. Thank the lawyers--only politicians have more ability give themselves a guaranteed revenue stream.

Re:Developer for the world?

[MikeMo]

Which parts are off the shelf? The cases are Apple-specific. In fact, in the case of the aluminum 'Books, Apple owns the process and the machinery. Samsung makes the CPU, but they are just the foundry - Apple designs the circuitry.

Re:Developer for the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's complaints are very specific. The lawsuits don't cite generic form factor. They have very clear examples of changes made to certain products (Samsung Galaxy S) to make it look very much like the iPhone and the iPad. This, Apple argues, creates confusion, mistakes, and deceit of consumers and is protected under "Registered Trade Dress".

Here is a good rundown of the specific accusations:
http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html

The similarities are in color scheme, shape, icons, packaging, marketing. It is not "a roundrect with a screen and icons". It is very specific.
Note the other product (F700 with touchscreen, icons, etc) that does not infringe.

Re:Developer for the world?

[koan]

Apple has a good design team, but keep in mind those early tablets/phones didn't have the tech available today, remember the Newton? What a monstrosity, but for the tech available pretty cool.

I recall reading somewhere that Jobs had stated he was waiting for the tech to catch up to what he imagined.

Re:Developer for the world?

[toruonu]

Also, iPhone came out on June 29th, 2007. The N810 in October of 2007 and looked pretty similar. You can't tell me the N810 was in reaction to the release of the iPhone. There had to be a good deal of parallel development time there. .

Steve demonstrated the iPhone in early January 2007. At the time FCC required a long validation period and they didn't want the phone leaked so they announced it and only then filed for compliance and right to sell. So add a whole 6 months to the difference and a total of 10, which is quite copyable...

Re:Developer for the world?

[MSG]

Before the iPhone, smartphones looked like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada
http://asset1.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/20090403/IMG_4858_540x360.jpg

Re:Developer for the world?

[koan]

I own some Apple products, an iMac, a Macbook Pro and an iPhone and I have a lot to say negative about the products as well, not a hater I just don't measure up to the fawning of fanbois so I appear to be a hater for my criticisms.

Re:Developer for the world?

[toruonu]

soon enough, you'll have a macbook air that has a magnetically attachable keyboard element and doubles as ipad.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Advantage_X7500

Um, no. Tim quite clearly said on the call that he thinks it equivalent to merging a toaster and a refridgerator. Sure you can do it, but it just isn't right. So he claimed Apple isn't going to that party even though others might.

Re:Developer for the world?

[timeOday]

And before smarthpones, PDAs looked like this.

Poor Sony. So near, yet so far.

Re:Developer for the world?

[Zordak]

No, patents protect the idea, copyrights protect implementations.

No, Copyrights protect "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." (17 U.S.C. 102). Patents protect new, nonobvious, and useful "process[es], machine[s], manufacture[s], [and] composition[s] of matter." (35 U.S.C. 101). Neither protects "wouldn't it be cool if ..."

I can tell you from firsthand experience that patent examiners frown on merely claiming a desired result. If your patent claim is "I claim a cloaking device capable of preventing visible detection of an object," the examiner will usually reject the claim for lack of specificity, even if you've fully disclosed a fully-enabled embodiment of a cloaking device. Of course, your attorney may be clever enough to draft claims broad enough to cover every method of implementing a cloaking device that people are able to come up with for the next 20 years, but if anything I would say that is persuasive that you have something truly revolutionary that deserves patent protection.

Re:Developer for the world?

[serviscope_minor]

Apple haters are a funny breed. I'll bet you think of yourself as a real free-thinking maverick, right?

Wow, that post was amazingly full of smug.

Where was the hate for Apple in my post?

Re:Developer for the world?

[quacking duck]

The iPhone was released in late June '07 but was *announced/demo'ed* January 9. This is a critical point because it widens your hypothetical reaction time between iPhone and N810 from 3 months to 10. Not saying there was any copying, or that the N810 was a reaction to the iPhone, but with almost a full year after the iPhone was demo'ed, it's harder to claim parallel development with near-100% certainty.

The N810 also had a *resistive* touchscreen, and... well, wasn't a phone but an "internet tablet" that relied on wifi or a Bluetooth bridge.

Meanwhile, the LG KE850, aka Prada was not announced Jan 2007, it was announced Dec 12, 2006, less than a month before the iPhone was demo'd. And if your original point with the N810 was that 3 months wasn't enough time for Nokia to copy Apple, Apple definitely didn't copy LG, with less than a month between both announcements (and over Christmas, too).

I watched various video reviews (example), and LG's own promo video from 2007, and about the only thing similar between the Prada and iPhone is that it has a capacitive touchscreen. The user interface in no way measures up to the original iPhone UI. The Prada at launch didn't have a full keyboard (so T9 only for text entry), and judging from the various apps they basically just transplanted onto a touchscreen the same small-screen, large-text interface seen on phones with a T9 keyboard, with very few UI innovations. Entering contacts was as awkward as I remember when I borrowed a phone in 2005. No multitouch, and what little swiping I saw was for scroll bars, which the reviewer had a very awkward time using, and the responsiveness was jerky (but "good enough", of course).

I tried finding images or video of their internet browser. Instead my top hits included an 8-step guide for setting up its internet connection first. I gave up after reviews said it was hopelessly outdated, and navigation/display options were "very poor". No wonder they never bothered showing it in demos and reviews.

I know this particular thread is about the hardware. I am not the original poster, and I have no problem saying there's parallel development in touchscreen hardware for phones.

But judging by what I see of the first Prada... no way in hell was it Apple's marketing alone that propelled the iPhone to the top, like you're implying.

The Prada got into user's hands before the iPhone by a few months, but its UI carried over far too much baggage and inappropriate interface elements from older phones, so it was completely and rightly eclipsed less than a month after its intro by the iPhone's intro/demo. And unlike Microsoft's infamous vapourware demos, what we saw of the iPhone in Jan 2007, we got that summer.

Re:Developer for the world?

[LordLucless]

Dude, you're a barista

Re:Developer for the world?

[quacking duck]

You are correct, that's exactly what RIM did:

"A venture capitalist quoted in the online PDF [says] that RIM 'dramatically misjudged' how important the user experience would turn out to be."

They thought "users wanted great battery life, great security, great mail handling, minimal network use, and a great keyboard experience." It turns out, a great user experience beats all those things.

Re:Developer for the world?

[mattack2]

How much is Microsoft making off every Android phone again?

Isn't Microsoft making money off of only *SOME* Android phones, from some specific makers that are willingly paying them? (Since they were unwilling to battle it out in court if necessary.)

Re:Developer for the world?

[ppanon]

Apple are very aggressive, and often attack first.

Well, that was certainly true under Steve Jobs. His legal and emotional responses in this area were formed in the Apple ][ clone battles of the 70's/80's against companies like Orange who created look-alikes that used almost straight copies of the Apple ][ ROMs and motherboards. Apple have since faced numerous issues with copies of their hardware and software, including the infamous battles with Microsoft over Windows Look and Feel and the Psystar Mac clones. It's not surprising that Steve Jobs would have been sensitive over the issue after it kept rearing its ugly head over decades.

Conversely, Tim Cook started with Apple in 1998 after most of these Apple litigation battles, and it doesn't look like his earlier career would have exposed him to that issue as much as Steve Jobs was. So it's not surprising that Mr. Cook would not react to any third-party product similarity in as knee-jerk a manner as Steve jobs would, and that he would be much more measured in his approach. With the changing of the guard, it seems quite possible that "Past performance is not indicative of future results" when it comes to Apple litigation. The war with Samsung is a lot less clear cut than it was with Orange or Psystar, and the risk of throwing money at a Microsoft Look & Feel-type legal dead end a lot higher. Tim Cook appears capable of being more objective than Steve Jobs in assessing the situation.

Re:Developer for the world?

[oxdas]

I wonder how much of the changes in look and feel came down to technology. The fact that the LG Prada and the iPhone look so similar and were being actively developed at the same time (although the LG was the first to market) suggests to me that technology, such as capacitive touch screens, smaller batteries, etc. were driving the look and feel, not the companies themselves.

After all, Apple's actively tries to create purely functional designs and functional designs are driven by the technology that's in them.

Re:Developer for the world?

[nomadic]

"His legal and emotional responses in this area were formed in the Apple ][ clone battles of the 70's/80's against companies like Orange who created look-alikes that used almost straight copies of the Apple ][ ROMs and motherboards."

Jobs' legal and emotional responses in this area sprung from narcissism and anger management issues that were part of his psyche, not any specific events. Considering Jobs reacted with shrieking anger to any other perceived slight, whether or not Apple had previously dealt with that issue, suggests that this is completely about neuroses and immaturity that Tim Cook lacks.

Re:Developer for the world?

[nomadic]

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/tech/apple.religion_1_apple-store-apple-employees-brains?_s=PM:TECH

Re:Developer for the world?

[dyingtolive]

That's fair. I was mostly responding to the image claiming that all phones looked similar hardware-wise to the iPhone after it was released. I can not try to argue that phone OS was not improved by Apple driving the rest of the market. I find it hard to accept that Apple has claim to being 'hardware developer for the world'.

Re:Developer for the world?

[quacking duck]

I don't like the hardware comparison picture "proof" myself, that's why I wasn't objecting to that. I just couldn't let the "It's almost as if Apple's a marketing company first" bit pass... Apple had something clearly superior in the ways that mattered to regular users.

Marketing gets people in the door, it can't keep them if your product is crappy or doesn't do what they expect. That's why some people try the iPhone, honestly don't like it for whatever reason, switch to something else, and that's cool by me--at least they tried and didn't lock themselves into an "I don't like Apple, I won't try it" mindset.

Works in reverse too: marketing meant a friend got a Blackberry Torch, but after 6 months of daily problems including total freezes, she ditched it for my nearly 3-year old iPhone 3GS, which she absolutely loves. Another user solidly in the Apple camp now, because it lived up to the marketing/hype that ironically turned her away from the iPhone in the first place.

Re:Developer for the world?

[ILongForDarkness]

I agree there are some dumb software patents out there but I wouldn't go so far as to separate software in general from other patents. Software the majority of the cost is in engineering time and just the cost of very creative people coming up with cool ideas. The cost is all upfront. A new mechanical widget on the other hand sure can have a lot of design thought involved too but a lot of the cost and need for patent protection is that there needs to be the followup expenses of a factory to produce the widget and the company needs to be sure to get that money back too.

But I'd argue that software has a compatible proportion of expenses it is just a lot of it goes into the process of innovation up front, development and testing time, cost of servers and dev tools better than factory worker wages for the grunt developers on the project etc.If the patent protection time is shorter for software than physical goods software shops end up having to make there money on a shorter timescale which would mean they'd have to raise prices. If there was no patent or other protections their would be little incentive to innovate as your competitors would only be ~6 months from having a version out with your new feature which is likely less than the tech cycle for your customers' IT shops or a customer buying a replacement gadget. Patents are not perfect but I think they are better than the alternative: risk of attempting innovations compounded with risk of getting a return before your competitors knock off your R&D.

Re:Developer for the world?

[zippthorne]

Why? Math is neither science, nor a useful art? It doesn't need to be promoted?

Re:Developer for the world?

[jedidiah]

The proof is in the pudding. Does all of that rhetoric actually translate into any actual real world results. In these situations a few isolated SCOTUS decisions or L1 papers about what the law is supposed to do are remarkably irrelevant.

What matters is what happens at the PTO and in the courts with patents in general.

Re:Developer for the world?

[hazah]

Troll? Really? Interesting, but it was merely an observation. The less you pay attention to detail the less informed you will be. It's a very simple corelation. Don't know how that's a troll, but suit yourselves.

Re:Developer for the world?

[milkasing]

What did smartphones look like before the iPhone?

They looked like the LG Prada, which sold a million phones incidentally, the iPhone, which was announced after the photos of the LG Prada had been circulating, looks like the LG Prada as well.

What did tablets look like before the iPad?

They looked like the Knight-Ridder Tablet, which was developed by one of the largest media companies of the time. Incidentally, the iPad, made 17 years later, looks like the LG Prada as well.

Aren't all of the ultra books attempted copies of the Macbook Air?

No. There were thin ultralight notebooks, long before apple. For example, the Sharp Actius which, as CNET noted, showed that the Macbook's claim of being the thinnest notebook was nonsense
This is nothing new. All my examples (and several more) have featured before in other places including /. comments. The point is, whatever you want to call it, Apple hasn't lead the industry and they probably steal the best ideas of trailblazers to build better targeted, better marketed, products, backed by an awesome supply chain, and a pretty decent industrial design team. But they have always been evolutionary (at least recently) rather than revolutionary.

Re:Developer for the world?

[ToasterMonkey]

You mean before and after the LG Prada, right? Which came out before the iPhone and was the first phone ever with a capacitive touchscreen.

If LG and Apple came to some sort of agreement, we can only infer from the lack of a lawsuit which way that went.

Nobody is foolish enough to think smartphone makers are merely copying the _Prada_, they are gunning for the iPhone's success.

Re:Developer for the world?

[rsborg]

They're all playing the same game, and nobody wins in the end except for the big companies.

Don't forget the lawyers (especially when they assemble like voltron and form patent trolls) - lawyers are always going to win in such a poisonous litigious environment.

Re:Developer for the world?

[ppanon]

I agree with you that those are also a factor. Another factor is that it sounds like Steve Jobs felt personally betrayed by Eric Schmidt because Jobs believed that Schmidt heavily used the information on the iPhone and iPad programs he was a party to as a member of Apple's board when creating Google's Android strategy. Given the character aspects you pointed out, his vendetta response is unsurprising. However if it hadn't been for Apple's past successes against Apple][ cloners and Psystar, Steve might not have jumped so quickly to a global 'scorched earth' legal policy and may have looked at other tools at his disposal.

Vendettas don't have any place in good governance and either Tim Cook understands that or he at least isn't caught up in this one and is willing to try to de-escalate the situation if it's causing as much harm as good. He may not be another Steve Jobs, but he also isn't a Steve Ballmer.

Hardware vs Data

[Bigby]

Apple is successful in their hardware, but data is the future of tech money. Targeted (and automated) marketing will rule the industry while Apple produces commodity products that will be copied and copied again, destroying the margins.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[jjohnson]

Ah, you've been digging up pundit's predictions from 2002, I see.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[mclaincausey]

Your post doesn't make any sense. You can't accumulate, store, or access data without hardware. Advertising is a different industry than the ones Apple chiefly participates in (iAd being a mere blip on their earnings report). Apple's products are not viewed as commodities by the market, which is why they command huge margins--margins that went up year over year if you bothered to read the earnings report. Apple's products have been copied and copied again and they still maintain premium status in the eyes of the consumer--margins haven't been destroyed and there's no reason to think they will be in the near term.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[Bigby]

There is money in their productions. And they can continue to make money in it if they can keep inventing new devices. In 2002, they didn't invent the iPod, iPhone, iTunes, or iPad yet. Their business model will always make them profits, but there is a limit. The limit is based on how many new products they come up with.

In contrast, data itself has perpetual value. Anyone can make a device. Not everyone can collect data from such a HUGE segment of the population and have the capability to keep in contact with them every single day...like Google.

I am not talking about 1 year projections. I am talking about 10 years from now. It will be Google that can offer you a discount at the store you just left without buying anything. The value in that concept plants the seed for a market revolution. And revolutions are worth a pretty penny as Apple has seen with mobile devices.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[jjohnson]

And what makes you think they'll stop inventing new devices?

As someone involved the tech world in exactly this "data is king" business model, I can tell you from direct experience that there's a hard limit on the value of data, and that's the value placed on it by business consumers. To quote the Calgary Flames marketing department, "we don't give a shit about surveying our customers". And they don't. They know who their customers are, what their demographic profile is, etc. They cared about (and used) our product because it offered another avenue of engagement, which is a separate concern.

Everyone involved in the data side always spins great fantasies about precision marketing and deep knowledge of your customers, without acknowledging that in many cases, deep knowledge isn't even useful or worth paying for because it doesn't increase engagement or conversion rates or redemption ratios. Remember Xmarks, the bookmarks plugin people who thought there'd be tremendous value in having an aggregate-able database of everyone's bookmarks? They built that database, and then ran out of money because no one wanted to do anything with it. They were saved only because someone else saw an opportunity to sell a premium version of their plugin.

I'm not saying data's worthless, by any means. But it's not particularly valuable in and of itself.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[DJCouchyCouch]

Apple's been destroying their margins for decades.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[mclaincausey]

Yeah. All those millions and millions of people are "brain dead fanbois." It couldn't be that Apple has done a good job inbound marketing, product design, product line segmentation, supply chain management, vertical integration, distribution, retail, and outbound marketing. What an incisive analysis...

Re:Hardware vs Data

[Bigby]

They will try to make new devices. I bet that they won't be nearly as successful as iTunes or the iPhone.

You are thinking really narrow with respect to the power of data. If the Calgary Flames sell out all the time, then data isn't as important as it is for 99% of other businesses that could always use more traffic/business. Sure there is advertising, which is the most visible use of the data. But there is national and corporate security, identifying untapped markets, car and mass transit traffic logistics, shipping logistics, broad marketplaces, legislation, etc... The ability to bring data together and make sense of it is so much bigger than anything in hardware, it isn't even funny.

Unless Apple plans to making flying vehicles, house cleaning robots, or automated chefs...

Re:Hardware vs Data

[Gilmoure]

Beleaguered and $14/share? I'll be sure to buy this time around.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[Eponymous Coward]

Would you also say that BMW and Mercedes will be unable to command higher margins long term?

Apple doesn't just sell hardware. They are selling devices + software + services and as gatekeepers to the ecosystem, they are taking a healthy cut of all the revenue that their devices generate. Even if their hardware margins slip, the ecosystem is large and healthy enough that their profits should continue to astound.

The Dell's and HP's of the world know they are screwed in the consumer space because they can't match the Apple experience because they only control a small part of the product. Microsoft is trying hard to copy, but they just don't have the talent, vision, or reputation. I think Amazon could challenge Apple or maybe even Facebook. It really is shocking how quickly Microsoft is losing the consumer market and how unresponsive they have been.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[jjohnson]

I'm not thinking narrowly about the power of data, I'm recognizing that there are barriers to exploiting data economically based on the fact that, for most of what businesses do, they just don't need all that data. You're positing tremendous potential for advanced uses of data; I'm pointing out that most businesses aren't even set up or capable or desiring to do even mildly complicated things with vast data sets. Most businesses struggle to do normal things well, or recognize (like the Flames) that adding a bunch of data won't improve what they already know how to do.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[cyber-vandal]

I think it's great personally. Shame the market took so fucking long to damage them. We could have been much further ahead in pretty much everything without that vast incompetent roadblock.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[Eponymous Coward]

I can't help but wonder about Linux's failure to unseat Microsoft. It's now pretty clear just how weak Microsoft's dominance was. They had (and still have) a strong corporate presence, but their consumer side was only strong because of inertia. How did they maintain their market share though the Vista fiasco? Or was that the beginning of the end for them as far as consumer electronics goes?

Other than XBox (which may have been a reaction to Sony and Nintendo dominating the living room), what are they doing right? When Java took off, they responded with the .Net CLR. Internet Explorer was a response to Netscape. When they felt threatened by Google, they created Bing. When iPhone rocked the industry, they responded (eventually) with WP7. The iPad starts to destroy the low end of the PC market and they focus Windows 8 on tablets. They then name their tablet OS which is the first Microsoft operating system in decades to not use a window metaphor, Windows RT. WTF?

I really don't understand why the shareholders aren't in revolt. This is definitely a company in need of new leadership and perhaps of being split up. Microsoft as a brand is as interesting these days to most people as Oracle or Cisco.

Re:Hardware vs Data

[mikael_j]

I'd say that a major problem with Microsoft is exactly what keeps them relevant, inertia. A different kind of inertia though.

From what I've seen they do have some interesting research projects going on, stuff that has a lot of promise and which could relatively easily be turned into products. Yet somehow a lot of that never really seems to reach customers, at least not in a way that's comparable to the promises of the original research. More and more I get the feeling that Microsoft's strategy of playing it safe is hurting them badly.

That btw, is IMHO exactly why Apple is doing so well with consumers, they're willing to change things up, they're willing to take an idea and commit to it. This means they'll have failures every now and then but it also means that customers feel confident that if Apple comes up with something new (or at least their own take on some idea which someone else has failed at marketing in the past) it's probably good. Microsoft on the other hand seem to do what many companies do, they figure something new they've got might possibly be a good idea so they market it a little bit, to see if it floats. Of course, a lot of times a good idea implemented poorly/lazily will not be perform nearly as well in the market as the same idea implemented properly...

Re:Hardware vs Data

[cyber-vandal]

In the corporate world where Linux could have made inroads there is a huge amount of Windows only software. In the consumer space, the Linux experience is not as good as the Windows or Mac one with regards to driver compatibility, GUI consistency and, again, availability of software. It doesn't matter how good Linux is or isn't; it's not marketed well and users can't run what they want on it.

But he is still arrogant.

[halfEvilTech]

To bad the summory missed the best quote of the conference call

Finally, one analyst dared ask a question about Apple's litigation battles when it comes to patents. "I've always hated litigation and I continue to hate it," Cook said, but "we just want people to invent their own stuff."

He is still an arrogant ass (yes I will probably lose some karma for that one)

Re:But he is still arrogant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rephrased to better express what I'm pretty sure Cook meant. -- "I've always hated litigation and I continue to hate it," Cook said, "we just don't want people to outright copy our products."

The first half of that sentence is, in fact, the very attitude that countless Slashdotters have claimed they would like to see coming out of Apple. Kudos to Cook for not being knee-jerk litigious.

The second half of that sentence isn't at all unreasonable. Even if Apple isn't doing anything other than "combining existing, often poorly implemented, inventions into very well polished consumer products," that's still a valuable service and often extremely difficult to do well. So Apple shouldn't have to stomach competitors like Samsung coming along and stealing industrial designs and user interfaces which are the result of years of work and lots of R&D money. Seriously, Samsung has copied Apple's mobile devices so closely (right down to the packaging) that it would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2011/09/is-samsung-really-copying-apple-you-decide.html

Re:But he is still arrogant.

[Gilmoure]

There's no skill in polishing. It's all about holding up a clunky rock and expecting people to beat a path to your door. Making it attractive and comfortable and fun to use is just useless fanboi marketing techniques. No skill involved there. Thats why everyone does that and there's only a couple companies out there that make new stuff.

Re:But he is still arrogant.

[Gilmoure]

Forgot my /sarcasm tags.

"I don't like violence...

[fustakrakich]

I'm a businessman. Blood is a big expense."

A ray of sanity

[Grayhand]

It'd be nice to see Apple let up on the Vendetta approach Jobs took to so many problems. I'd love to see them ease up on the Adobe hatred as well. Flash may have it's issues but a good share of the web uses it so it's a pain my iDevices refuse to acknowledge it. For all his pluses Jobs had an irrational confrontational approach to companies he saw as competition or even companies that resisted doing things his way.

Re:A ray of sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

I never thought I'd see "a ray of sanity" followed by a request for Flash on more products.

Re:A ray of sanity

[cjhuitt]

I don't want them to let Flash on iDevices. I've refused to install Flash on my development machine at work since before there was an iPhone (well, before the world at large knew about it, anyway), and IMO the web has improved with the reduction of Flash use where it was entirely unnecessary.

The only downside to all this is the ads that used to use Flash (and thus were automatically blocked for me, no effort necessary) are now using other techniques that don't rely on browser plugins.

Re:A ray of sanity

[mikael_j]

The thing with Adobe is that it's by no means all Apple's fault.

One of the core issues was Adobe's creative suite, when they ported it to OS X they used Carbon rather than Cocoa. They knew Carbon wouldn't live forever yet they threw a temper tantrum when Apple started dropping Carbon in favor of the all-Cocoa future. Then they seemed to realize that if they dropped OS X as a platform they'd most likely end up losing customers as others (possibly including Apple themselves) filled the void, apparently they figure out that users of Adobe software on Apple platforms are generally more loyal to Apple than Adobe...

Re:A ray of sanity

[mclaincausey]

Adobe killed mobile Flash last year. Are you expecting Apple to now build their own Flash client implementation for this buggy, insecure, dying technology? Jobs was right about Flash.

Re:A ray of sanity

[jedidiah]

The "ray of sanity" is allowing the user to decide.

You don't need to be a jerk. You don't need to be a megalomaniac.

Being both of those things just makes it obvious you are a threat to the community at large. You shouldn't do that before you have gotten yourself fully entrenched. An appropriate smack down is much more likely to be effective.

Re:A ray of sanity

[aliquis]

As macs later got GPU accelerated video decoding on OS X I'd say the issue with Flash on Macs wasn't Adobes fault in the first place but rather Apples.

As far as crashes goes I don't know how much Flash affect things but Apple ran it separately somehow from Safari 3 or 4 so I doubt it's an issue longer anyway.

(You'd often heard how efficient macs is compared to PCs but still you'd also heard all the talk about how the latest version of OS X is so much better and faster than the old one. But how can it be if the old one was so awesome? Personally I think it has improved and that the first versions probably wasn't all that great (And I don't judge Windows 8 or XP SP2 on the merits of Windows 95 either.))

Re:A ray of sanity

[rtfa-troll]

The "ray of sanity" is allowing the user to decide.

Flash is; together with Java (applets; server side Java is fine); the current big cause of security holes and both set out to be things that nobody could avoid having. These are two archaic, proprietary nightmares which, together with H.264, were disrupting the chance to have a standardised free web. Destroying Flash, which is taking .NET with it, is about the best thing Apple has done in the last ten years.

If Google only has the guts to completely kill off the companies using H.264 then we will see something really good and a real proof of the value of competition in the computing industry. I have been just blown away by the fact that, for the first time in a number of years, I am completely happy running a computer without any Flash install at all.

Re:A ray of sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

5 years later

Jobs invented Flash

Re:A ray of sanity

[ColdWetDog]

I dunno. Although I agree that the Vendetta approach is old and tiresome, it's really hard to let go of my deep and visceral hate for Adobe.

They make Larry Ellison look like the Easter Bunny.

Re:A ray of sanity

[Dog-Cow]

Given the Adobe has given up on Flash for Android, I'd say it's time you let go and realized that Flash on a mobile device isn't happening.

Re:A ray of sanity

[mark-t]

There are actually several reasons that Apple had for avoiding Flash, and I'm inclined to think that most (not all) were rather good ones. They don't avoid Adobe completely... their ibook reader handles PDF fairly well (although I do wish that the bookmark facility supported openable and closeable nested bookmarks, rather than just always having them all expanded out)

Re:A ray of sanity

[KlomDark]

> Destroying Flash, which is taking .NET with it, is about the best thing Apple has done in the last ten years.

Taking .NET with it? Huh? The new hot thing in the mobile development space is C#/Mono (Open source .NET) because it's the only language/platform that's available on iOS/Android/Windows (Is it also on BlackBerry? I don't know.) Phone. You write 95% of your mobile code in Mono/Ximian and then only need some native 'glue code' to hook the UI to the shareable code. How's the taking .NET with it?

Sure, you can take pot shots at Windows Phone, and I don't know how that is going to turn out, but Microsoft has not really began that battle yet, not until Windows 8 is ready. They may lose this time, but they've always been late to the game and then monstrously won over time.

But still Windows Phone is not the point. Apple killing Flash has nothing to do with killing .NET. HTML5 is killing Flash, and Silverlight, but it's not really Apple killing either one. It's that there's finally a working cross-platform HTML specification available.

Re:A ray of sanity

[mlts]

What I would like is just the ability to access my iDevice's raw filesystem and the functionality I get by jailbreaking. I don't care if I have to buy an iOS membership to get this -- I want to be able to pop a command line, grab an E-mail attachment, edit it, encrypt it with a gpg key on the device, then scp it from the phone (likely in /var/mobile) to the remote device. Yes, this might be possible if one has enough apps that cooperate with each other, but it is far easier to just have a command shell where one can run mutt, vi, gpg, then sftp right in succession.

One reason Apple has not allowed this is because of the perception of compromise in the open Android ecosystem. If the JB-like functionality was limited to developers or some way where it wouldn't bite Apple in the behonkus if someone started bawling that their device got compromised because of a JB-functionality exploit, then this would be a must have. Even if it was something called a beta function, this would make iOS devices a lot more useful.

I'm sure this can be implemented in a way to minimize piracy (mainly because people with open devices would be known.) This way, someone going crazy with Installious would be quickly found and JB-equivilent access could be removed, relieving Apple of the pressure by app developers to keep making it harder to have a working jailbreak.

Perhaps another anti-piracy mechanism like Android's LVL that doesn't depend on the jail. However, there are toolkits that easily work around LVL, so it isn't a 100% guarentee either.

Re:A ray of sanity

[UnknowingFool]

Yes and no. At time when these platforms were announced, Classic was for backwards compatibility. Carbon was acceptable for future use as an intermediate step but it was always stated eventually Cocoa would be the ultimate platform. The shelf life of Carbon was not set in stone. I think Apple played around with the idea of Carbon 64, but decided to kill it for a few reasons. First of which was that a lot of the functionality was already in Cocoa and second, Adobe was one of the few developers that were asking for it. Now you can still use Carbon and some parts of the OS X is still Carbon; however, if you want 64 bit and other advanced features, you should use Cocoa.

Re:A ray of sanity

[Dixie_Flatline]

Flash has been a blight for over a decade. If what it took to kill it was Apple drawing a line in the sand with its iDevices, praise be to Apple. I don't care if it's nearly ubiquitous, it's terrible. And frankly, Jobs was right that a lot of the way Flash works doesn't work well with how you use your touch device.

I want Flash dead. I'm like the Trickster to Adobe's Flash.

Re:A ray of sanity

[Eponymous Coward]

Flash is a poorly written battery hog. One of the reasons Apple banned Flash is because it makes the device look bad. In the end, I think Apple was right about Flash and they are probably mostly responsible for Flash's death.

Normally though, I agree that the user should be the one to decide. For example, the DVR I bought from DirecTV is perfectly capably of playing Netflix streams, yet it doesn't include that capability, nor can I install it. My PS3 is also locked down.

Re:A ray of sanity

[Waccoon]

Jobs was right about Flash.

The problem was not whether Flash was bad, it was whether Apple had the exclusive right to designate it so.

Re:A ray of sanity

[gnasher719]

As macs later got GPU accelerated video decoding on OS X I'd say the issue with Flash on Macs wasn't Adobes fault in the first place but rather Apples.

Having implemented an h.264 decoder from the published sample implementation for some internal project before Core 2 was released, and having used Flash on a Macintosh, I can tell you that the slow speed and CPU eating behaviour of Flash is not due to having no GPU acceleration. A 320 x 240 movie shouldn't use 80% of the CPU time on any Mac, GPU acceleration or not.

Re:A ray of sanity

[aliquis]

Yeah I to noticed the effect =P

"Settle"

[miltonw]

"Settle" translation: We want Google to pay us lots and lots of money for OUR ideas (which we took from everyone who came before us -- and never paid for.).

Re:"Settle"

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're so willing to settle and license rather than litigate and crush, perhaps they wouldn't mind finally licensing out the dock connector specifications and APIs to other 'mp3 player' / smartphone manufacturers.

Re:"Settle"

[gl4ss]

well.
settling implies having already initiated court proceedings(suing).
it's a bullshit quote meant to buy press space and goodwill.

it's not settling when you just sign a licensing deal without involving courts at all.

Re:"Settle"

[Uberbah]

which we took from everyone who came before us -- and never paid for.

Xerox got paid. And Apple pays money for patents all the time, just as other companies pay royalties to Apple all the time.

Any more chestnuts? One button mouse, or copying a 17 meg file maybe?

Re:"Settle"

[miltonw]

No, your chestnuts are fine.

All companies and all people build on what came before -- without necessarily giving credit or money or even being aware how much they depend on the inspiration (and hard work) of others. The fact that they pay for some of others' ideas and hard work does not prove they paid for all or even most of the prior concepts, ideas and hard work of others. This is actually perfectly fine and inevitable.

What is wrong is to build something based in part on concepts, ideas and hard work of hundreds (thousands) of others who came before and then claim you own those concepts and ideas and now everyone must pay. That's the way the world works today but that doesn't make it right.

Re:"Settle"

[Uberbah]

What is wrong is to build something based in part on concepts, ideas and hard work of hundreds (thousands) of others who came before and then claim you own those concepts and ideas and now everyone must pay. That's the way the world works today but that doesn't make it right.

And your examples would be.....? I wasn't aware Apple had laid claim to the concept of personal computers, mp3 players, tablets, smartphones, etc etc etc....

"Apple Fever"? TMZ Meets Market Analysis!

[eldavojohn]

several analysts think Apple is just getting started

I find this particularly interesting since I would assume that market penetration should be causing their growth to slow -- hell they did worse than they did last quarter which, although still good, is a sign they're slowing somewhat, right? So I looked it up on this BGR blog site and it appears that only one analyst thinks so, Brian White. Can anyone provide several other analysts who thing "Apple is just getting started"?

I also found some of Brian White's quotes to be less than analytical:

“Apple fever rocks on”

and

"Apple fever is spreading like a wildfire around the world and we see no end in sight to this trend"

I hate to engage in character assassination but that really doesn't sound like any of the analyst reports I've ever read. They're usually dry as hell and stick to the numbers. Numbers numbers numbers, usually that's all that matters. Anyone got numbers on market penetration instead of telling me "Apple fever has no end in sight"?

Re:"Huge Quarter" - is this still SlashDot?

[mclaincausey]

A sage move. I mean, look at how sales have fallen off since the "marketing genius" died...

Re:Huge Quarter?

[Samantha Wright]

It looks like he's got quite a lot of oversized change, actually...

Stocks are, in part, based on future growth

[geekoid]

Apple sold 35.1 million iPhones into channels last quarter, along with 11.8 million iPads, 7.7 million iPods and 4 million Mac computers.

In order to maintain the growth, they would need to see:

55 million iPhones into channels , along with 18 million iPads, 13 million iPods and 6.5 million Mac computers.

approx.

So, the question is, can then do that? can the sell 55 million new iPhone in the first quarter of next year?

Re:Stocks are, in part, based on future growth

[CanHasDIY]

I have to wonder, what would Apple's numbers look like if you took away all the taxpayer subsidized contracts with public schools?

Re:Stocks are, in part, based on future growth

[Manos_Of_Fate]

I suspect some government contractors would not appreciate you suggesting that their sales somehow mean less because they were made to the government and paid for with taxes.

Re:Stocks are, in part, based on future growth

[CanHasDIY]

I suspect some government contractors would not appreciate you suggesting that their sales somehow mean less because they were made to the government and paid for with taxes.

Possibly; then again, these are the same contractors who charge we taxpayers $600+ a pop for toilet seats, so pardon me if I don't feel sorry for them.

BTW, Manos_Of_Fate... What you did? It's there, and I see it :D

Re:Stocks are, in part, based on future growth

[painandgreed]

Apple sold 35.1 million iPhones into channels last quarter, along with 11.8 million iPads, 7.7 million iPods and 4 million Mac computers.

In order to maintain the growth, they would need to see:

55 million iPhones into channels , along with 18 million iPads, 13 million iPods and 6.5 million Mac computers.

...or, add another iDevice to their list. I keep hearing talk about an Apple TV. I really don't see how they could break into the TV business even if it was essentially an iMac made for streaming TV and internet content meant for the living room. Then, what else could they add to their ecosystem?

Re:Stocks are, in part, based on future growth

[mirix]

iCrowave and iFridge are coming next, obviously.

Re:Stocks are, in part, based on future growth

[painandgreed]

You laugh now...

Re:"Apple Fever"? TMZ Meets Market Analysis!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard not to laugh at your assertion that since "Apple did worse than last quarter" that it's a sign that they're slowing. Maybe you forgot that last quarter included a little thing called Christmas?

Re:Tiring

[ColdWetDog]

Simple really. It's the Golden Rule.

He who has the gold, rules.

Re:"Apple Fever"? TMZ Meets Market Analysis!

[aliquis]

People could bring up things like:

* Apple isn't big in the corporate space.
* Apple haven't released or have just recently released their phones in many areas of the world.
* Apple doesn't sell into the low-end (whatever that would improve profits is another question I suppose.)

Beyond that I guess people expect more sales to be done online and by digital distribution.

For instance what about TV from Apple instead of whatever you use now?

Re:"Apple Fever"? TMZ Meets Market Analysis!

[Fahrvergnuugen]

hell they did worse than they did last quarter which, although still good, is a sign they're slowing somewhat, right?

Wrong. The holiday quarter and quarters containing new product launches have a huge influence over revenue. You can't measure things quarter to quarter, you have to go to the year ago quarter to check growth and even then you have to take into consideration if one or the other was a launch quarter.

If you want to know why certain people (yours truly included) are betting big on AAPL, consider this:

âoeJust two years after we shipped the initial iPad, weâ(TM)ve sold 67 million. To put that in some context, it took us 24 years to sell that many Macs, and five years for that many iPods, and over three years for that many iPhones

.

And also realize that the phone market is a billion+ handsets per year. Their customers love the iPhone more than any other phone and so the growth potential is huge.

Huge quarter?

[Chris Mattern]

Is it anything like Batman's giant penny?

Re:"Apple Fever"? TMZ Meets Market Analysis!

[ColdWetDog]

I think the part the analysts are looking at it the Asia Pacific market share. There are billions of potential customers in Chindia and surrounding villages. Even if / when the North American / European market gets saturated, you can count on sales figures from the 'developing world' to, well, develop.

Should give them a couple more years.

It's not much different from the US car manufacturers who are seeing stable to decreasing sales in NA / Europe but are busily building factories in China for domestic consumption. It's the New World Order folks.

Hidden Meaning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim Cook Prefers Settling To Suing and Has a Huge Quarter

Is that a euphemism?

Huge quarters

[mbone]

I knew about Steve Jobs "last dime" (which, sadly, I guess he has indeed spent by now), and so when I read

Tim Cook Prefers Settling To Suing and Has a Huge Quarter

I figured that must be some obscure reference to the size of either his warchest (for suing) or his pockets (for settling).

Well, it did get me to read the summary, so I guess it worked as a title.

Re:Huge quarters

[sm284614]

I assume this special Apple 'Huge Quarter' is essentially the same as any other quarter, but they've polished it up a little and will sell it to you for fifty cents. Or maybe it's mistyped and Tim Cook has a very spacious cabin on the USS Apple...

Re:Huge quarters

[Yvan256]

According to Wikipedia:

"There are three freely convertible currencies in the world, but none of them count. The American Dollar has recently collapsed, the Renminbi is only exchangeable for other Renminbi, and the Apple Quarter has its own very special problems. It exchange rate of five Apple Nickels to one Apple Quarter is simple enough, but since an Apple Quarter is worth $100 billions, no one has ever collected enough to own one Apple Quarter. Canadian Tire bills are not negotiable currency, because banks refuse to deal with monopoly money. From this basic premise it is very simple to prove that the banks are also the product of a deranged imagination."

Re:"Huge Quarter" - is this still SlashDot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Inertia?

What happens when all the people Jobs hired start drifting away?

I see AAPL as too late to buy and too early to short. It looks like a bubble, but it's PE and other metrics aren't too bubbly. At some point, the iDevice market share will saturate. They'll cut prices to fight that, the market will mistakenly regard that as a favorable move rather than a death gasp, and then it will be time to short.

Doesn't this just mean their profit margin is too

[cvtan]

Other companies must be having fits that Apple can sell shiny bits with rounded corners at high prices while everyone else squeaks by at much lower margins. When I have bought Apple products for my wife or granddaughter, it felt much more like buying jewelry or Steuben glass than a tech purchase. Beautiful and just as sensibly priced. Silly though.

patents do NOT protect an idea

[Chirs]

They protect an implementation of an idea. If someone else can implement the idea in a way that doesn't infringe on the patent, you're good.

Re:patents do NOT protect an idea

[serviscope_minor]

They protect an implementation of an idea.

No, they don't.

Take for example the RSA patent. The patent is on the algorithm, in other words the idea.

You can implement it however you want, in any language using simple or mudular FFT multiplication or any of a variety of different ways of implementing it.

You'll still be infringing because the patent protects the idea, not the implemtation.

Your implentations will, however, still be protected under copyright.

Re:patents do NOT protect an idea

[gl4ss]

They protect an implementation of an idea. If someone else can implement the idea in a way that doesn't infringe on the patent, you're good.

well, maybe in the 19th century. since then things have changed. how else do you explain slide to unlock being patentable ip? not the code behind how it's done, not the loops going on in the program.. not the way electrons are arranged to move between transistors to achieve it.. but the thing that a bitmap changes position on the screen when the detected point of finger touching the screen moves and that causes a program to run.

Re:patents do NOT protect an idea

[Hognoxious]

Take for example the RSA patent. The patent is on the algorithm, in other words the idea.

No. The idea is to encrypt data. The algorithm is an implementation of that idea. A different method of encrypting data would be a different implementation and wouldn't fall under the same patent.

Horseless carriage = idea. 4-stroke gasoline, 2 stroke diesel, rotary, gas turbine = 4 different implementations of that idea.

Re:A very bad thing for Apple

[idontgno]

Poe's Law

Yeah, uh there is this thing called "Christmas"

[unassimilatible]

In Q4's, and they tend to make Q4's better than Q1's. No analyst compares sequential quarters, so keep your day job.

Their iPad sales dropped significantly quarter-over-quarter.

Again, Christmas, dude. And the new iPad was the worst-kept secret in the tech world for months, and it was only on sale for 3 weeks in Q1 and they couldn't make enough of them to keep up with demand. Apple DOMINATES the tablet space. Number 2 isn't even close.

Uh, no

[unassimilatible]

That is SHAREHOLDER cash, not employee cash, Mr. Marx.

LOL, good luck shorting AAPL

[unassimilatible]

Not that you really are short Apple. Just bluster, like the two bearish Apple analysts always on CNBC, not really short. Few if any retail investors have the equity to really short stocks. But I'll happily sell you some puts on AAPL.

Re:"Huge Quarter" - is this still SlashDot?

[Kevin Stevens]

They are still selling products developed in the Jobs era. The product pipeline is the big concern. The next iphone will be the first phone developed without any oversight from Jobs. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

Personally, I think some cracks are already showing. The iPad 3 was mostly a tech update. Siri, the main feature of the last iPhone, has usability issues that make it a lightly used curiosity. Siri is the kind of feature that Jobs was legendary for forcing his engineers to get working flawlessly. If you read about him, he was a completely hands-on micromanaging perfectionist when it came to product design. He would critique every minute detail, until he got it just the way he wanted, with little regard to cost. He was also a great pitch man. Somehow he got you excited about a bookstore on your phone.

I think Apple's success is wonderful, but I fear that without Jobs, the company is going to flounder, just like it did in the 90s. I really hope that doesn't happen, Apple makes great products. But I won't be buying their stock until I see a few successful product releases in the post-Jobs era.

Re:"Apple Fever"? TMZ Meets Market Analysis!

[mlts]

Apple can easily step into the corporate sector for a large revenue stream any time they wanted. Right now, they are doing well as they are, but if the existing revenue streams run low, it wouldn't be hard for them to step into the enterprise. They would need to make some changes to existing machines (such as a modified Mac Pro case that is mountable on a rack drawer with all parts easily accessible), and run an "Apple means business" campaign, and they would make definite inroads into the corporate sector. Especially if Apple licensed from MS items like Active Directory functionality like domain servers and such.

This would allow Apple to get in the enterprise without having to make a specific model like the XServe (which didn't sell well when it was killed.)

Re:A very bad thing for Apple

[DigiShaman]

Steve wasn't that bright. Sure, he was smart, shrewd and an authoritative asshole based on others that have had to directly work with the man. All hallmarks that define effective leadership. From that aspect, he was just another benevolent dictator. And historically, people love this type of character.

Nothing new here. Move along.

Tim Cook has a huge quarter

[93 Escort Wagon]

Argh. This is a problem - everyone makes that mistake. But those are Susan B. Anthony dollars - not quarters.

Re:Tim Cook has a huge quarter

[Gilmoure]

Not Sackagaweea?

Re:despite all the propaganda

[UnknowingFool]

A short look at the numbers shows that their quarter actually sucked. They sold less units in this quarter than they did in the last quarter.

Almost no one compares quarter to quarter results for this simple reason: Apple's Q2 covers Jan - Mar. Q1 covers Oct - Dec (the holiday season). For a consumer electronics company, you'd expect them to have a slight drop off in sales after the holidays.

The opposite quarter-over-quarter was true for the same period in '11.

Where do you get that? Apple's numbers in millions of units:
Q1 2011

1. Computers: 4.13
2. iPhones: 16.24
3. iPads: 7.33
4. iPods: 19.45

Q2 2011:

1. Computers: 3.76
2. iPhones: 18.65
3. iPads: 4.69
4. iPods: 9.02

Q1 2012

1. Computers: 5.2
2. iPhones: 37.04
3. iPads: 15.43
4. iPods: 15.4

Q2 2012

1. Computers: 4
2. iPhones: 35.1
3. iPads: 11.8
4. iPods: 7.7

Except for iPods which are constantly declining they are increasing sales year to year.

Their absolute numbers are higher than they were last year because they entered new markets. But they are already declining in these new markets after being there for only 2 quarters.

I don't understand how you came to this analysis. The iPad was launched in 2009. Every years it sells more and more. The iPhone was launched in 2007. Every year, more are sold.

They have not gained any market share on Android.

So one company with variations of one phone manage to sell more every year with a majority of the profit, yet cannot outsell dozens of companies with hundreds of models but don't make as much profit and you're not impressed. Also same company pretty much has the majority of tablet sales. You're not impressed.

Everyone is trying to compare them to last year because it's something to compare to which shows an increase. But a quarter-over-quarter decrease is a very troubling sign.

No this is not a sign of trouble because your analysis is faulty. Everyone else is doing the analysis correctly. Year to year is the way to do it.

And they haven't quite beat the reduced market estimates. The estimates were that they would sell 13 million iPads. They sold less than 12 million iPads.

Please. Half the analysts have said that Apple was going to release a iPhone mini years ago. An iPad mini, etc. Analysts predictions are always off.

Analysts think Apple is just getting started?

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

Really? I know some analysts that eat their own poo. Pick anything rocketing to the top and you'll find plenty of people standing around to tell you its going to continue.

Thing is...probably not.

Re:A very bad thing for Apple

[Gilmoure]

*golf clap*

Holy Coinage!

[tverbeek]

I was just disappointed that the headline didn't refer to him having a "huge quarter" on display in the Apple Cave below Stately Cook Manor.

Re:Huge Quarter?

[Manos_Of_Fate]

This is how I read that initially. I was very confused until I read the summary.

Re:"Apple Fever"? TMZ Meets Market Analysis!

[dodobh]

Apple will have pricing issues in India and China. Even Nokia is being chewed up from below by cheap phones.

Remember that data pricing is still exorbitant in these markets, even when voice calls and texts are not.

Re:"Huge Quarter" - is this still SlashDot?

[Eponymous Coward]

Apple are still small players in the global market. They are just getting started and they sell products with a 2-year lifespan and have no serious competition (I say this as the owner of a Nexus S running ICS). Android generates little revenue, Microsoft isn't even trying, and RIM still thinks it's 2002. I don't think it could get much better for Apple right now.

Tim Cook's quarter?

[doston]

More like Jobs had a huge quarter. Once Tim's been in charge and the germinating seeds Jobs planted aren't still coming to fruition, Tim can go ahead and take the credit. If, in a few years, the company is still making money hand over fist, I'll salute him. Right now it's Thanks Steve. RIP

Change only happens through litigation

[c_jonescc]

Whether it's Apple innovating, or someone else, the patent system needs some desperate repairs.

And settling with Trolls does not do this. Settlements tend to be under NDAs, and therefore nobody knows how much was bled, how little the gain was, or how much you can hold a corporation hostage for. This leads to a prospectors climate, and the only way out is to force things into actual litigation and set new precedents.

It's short sighted of Apple (Cook) to avoid such lawsuits. They have the biggest war chest (what, still the better part of a trillion USD in cash holdings?), and can fix this problem for the rest of the tech sector. I feel that Jobs did this to some extent with the RIAA, and it makes Cook look spineless and short term report focused.

Re:Change only happens through litigation

[Miseph]

That would be great... if only Apple were a charity focused on reforming patent law for the benefit of all Americans.

Since they are not, it would be incredibly odd for them to pursue such a goal, especially without any real evidence to suggest it would provide a better return to their investors, which is the only thing Apple actually has to work toward. Indeed, it is possible that they benefit far more from patent trolls and a flawed patent system than they suffer: as a major incumbent, they are quite capable of defending themselves from any challenge with too odious a settlement offer, but smaller start ups might not be able to do so. This insulates them from increased competition, and can give them leverage with small firms whose tech they wish to purchase if there is any danger that company would be targeted by a patent holder.

Simply put, Apple will not do this thing you suggest. Not now, not ever. Doing so would be insane and reckless, which is not what Apple does.

Re:Huge quarter?

[seven of five]

Feh. I have a dollar bill worth more'n any quarter...

Re:"Apple Fever"? TMZ Meets Market Analysis!

[aliquis]

That was the point.

As in they aren't there yet but they can be and hence they can get even more revenue growth in the future.

As far as the mac pro goes though rumors are it will be scrapped.

Might want to look at this before and after pic

[unassimilatible]

of Google's first phone:

Google's phone concepts before and after seeing the iPhone.

Here's what you don't understand

[koan]

The Apple logo is an apple with a bite out of it, a reference to the Biblical Tree of Knowledge, but who suggested a bite be taken? None other than Satan, clearly Jobs made a deal with the Devil.

That's why Apple is so successful. /snark
 

Re:Tiring

[oztiks]

No, no ........... no ....

Cook is going to run Apple off a balance sheet, Jobs ran Apple via his "visionary" stance. Cast your mind back to the days when Jobs was sacked and the same thing happened then. In the bigger picture Apple is doomed, unless they can replace the Jobsie cult figure that once ran the company to its success - 7inch tablet really? Apple is now playing catch up to Samsung? Not very innovative.

Further, watching Samsung and Apple go at it is like watching too ally cats, lots of hissing and spitting a couple of whacks in the face but we all know they aren't really going to hurt each other.

AAPL: $1000 per share by January 2013

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

/. is the new Yahoo Finance. Mark my word.

ROFLMAO

Name a single company which has invented anything

[Brannon]

ever by your standard.

I guarantee that I can show how all they did was "combine an existing, often poorly implemented, invention into a very well polished product."

Seriously. Any invention ever. Any company ever. Go ahead, I'll be waiting.

No

[SmallFurryCreature]

They might not hurt each other but they hurt everyone else in the process. This has shown how the future might turn out, with everyone using patents to keep the other side from competing and ultimately making sure that any new comer either has to buy a lot of patents OR has to spend a fortune licensing up front of any actual earnings making it again impossible for a small startup to get started.

Steve Jobs showed himself to be a really bad apple, in human society, you got to learn not to take afront of every slight against you. Imagine that every tiny little mishap in traffic was to be settled in court, we would all be in court for eternity. Often you just have to let it go and accept that shit happens. The supposed sameness of the iPad and Galaxy Tab devices showed just how far Jobs was gone. There is only so much you can do with design and Apple was NOT itself original with either its design OR in spending effort on designing the packaging. Hell, if you buy higher end products, you would have long since gotten used to the fact that not all products come in brows boxes with white styrofoam.

That they looked similar? Yes? Have you looked at other items where design plays a role? In most industries this is not just accpeted, historians and art experts point to specific periods when EVERYONE did EVERYTHING in the same style. Sometimes one person leads and the rest follows. Imagine if Picasso was to have sued every other painter who copied his style of Cubism. Unthinkable right? And it is not like in paintings that design is dictated by functionality. You can paint any style you want. Just how many shapes can you make a tablet before you end up with something unusable?

And that was Jobs entire plan, to stop ANYONE else from making a tablet without having to make a device because sooner that could function. Oops, no rectangular screen for you. Rounding of the corners? no no. It would be fine if Jobs had designed the very first tablet or made it unique but the iPad was far from the first and hardly original in its design.

For the average civilian out there, competition is not just a good thing, it is essential. We have seen what happens in IT land without competition. IE and Intel are prime examples. MS did nothing with the browser when they had no competition and Intel just stopped innovating until AMD kicked their asses and forced them to get serious again.

Perhaps what is needed is something kind of law similar to FRAND patents but now for design. The official regoniztion that sometimes function influences design to such a degree that it is silly to award a single design to a single company.

All slab phones will look similar simply because they are a rectangular screen with a speaker, a mic and a button. About the only thing you can change is the font of the logo. Yes, putting a lighted pear symbol on the back is a bit to far but rounded corners? Dimensions? Why not try to trademark a screen resolution and be done with it.

Sometimes the world needs innovators who push things and are filled with fire to get things done. And then the suits need to take over to avoid everyone constantly challenging everyone else to duels. It is the reason diplomacy is done by diplomats, NOT politicians. Diplomats are generally soft spoken individuals who think in decades rather then next weeks poll. And they mostly spend their time trying to downplay the latest politicians gaff. Steve Jobs put Apple in a bad position. Did he really think he was going to fucking bury Android? He did it before and he can do it again? Gosh, someone else said something very similar and HE is a figure of ridicule in IT and especially on this site.

Not everyone is equally good at everything and Apple should just have left this to a suit who knows spreadsheets. The spreadsheet after all shows clearly that copy or not, the galaxy tab is no threat. Why ruin your good name and risk legal battles that could (and have) gone against you when the boring sales figures show that there is no reason to fight. The only reason f

Re:No

[oztiks]

My sentiment exactly. Samsung creates a consumer product whilst at the same time sells "nuts and bolts" to Apple so they can make their own. I wont dispute the power of Samsung but before the tablet era the world only knew them as a company that made good computer screens and fridges. They don't float in the stock exchange, they don't reveal themselves so openly and no they have no real fear of Apple in the market place. I believe they have no real fear of anyone in the market place.

Apple on the other hand contrives products of luxury and sophistication. Everyone wants to look like they are worth lots of money and strapping an Apple product to their belt does just that. It's shown the world that desirability is so saleable and that it can build a huge empire but it's merely an empire built on emotion and not requirement.

I always said if Apple fell off the planet tomorrow the world wouldn't change as we knew it. If Google did the world / internet would feel it. These patient trolls are just a form of control that Jobs tried to inflict on competition because his main competition (Samsung) has a massive hold on him! it only serves to demonstrate his own personal inadequacies, he could of just purchased his "nuts and bolts" from another supplier? Why didn't he?

Control everyone with patients? yet we have laws that prevent monopolies from taking over the world i.e "anti trust". How twisted is our system?

35.1 million...

[Alioth]

35.1 million iPhones sold...

Let's review what Steve Ballmer thought about the iPhone... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
How's Windows Phone 7 working out...

Re:"Apple Fever"? TMZ Meets Market Analysis!

[Xest]

"I think the part the analysts are looking at it the Asia Pacific market share. There are billions of potential customers in Chindia and surrounding villages."

But how are they going to tap into this market? These low margin markets (plus the one you forgot - the continent of Africa) are precisely where Nokia screwed up - they ended up spending too much time chasing volume in these markets, and neglected their high margin markets. This is before you factor in the point that at least some of Apple's success is based on it's image as a fashionable brand - can it really retain that whilst producing budget cut down versions for China and India?

People see China and India as magical markets, and they are for some things - the cheap and bare essential products that everyone can buy, where volume matters, but Apple's not about volume - this is why they only have 17% of the smartphone market vs. 52% for Android yet still make most of the Smartphone profits. Consider this - China's economy is less than half the size of America's, yet has more than 4 times the population, now consider how many Americans as a proportion of the population can't afford or can't justify the expense of an iPhone - it's no small amount, and imagine how much worse that must be in China. The story in India is even worse - it's economy is even smaller again yet has a similar multiple of America's population.

The problem is best illustrated by these lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

If you're a company like Apple, focussing on the high end, your best opportunities are to work down this list top to bottom, or alternatively to try and steal back marketshare from the high end Android devices like the Samsung Galaxy SII though I suspect that wont be easy - in some high end markets like the UK, the Galaxy SII alone actually has a healthy lead over the iPhone.

Apple just doesn't have the type of business model that can realistically benefit from the large populations of China and India -that isn't to say there aren't segments of these markets that are worth going for, but still less so than most Western markets, some Middle Eastern markets, and so on, and still arguably much less so than just trying to claw ground back from the competition in existing markets.

Re:"Huge Quarter" - is this still SlashDot?

[Kevin Stevens]

If you haven't gotten the memo, Jobs died. And while yeah he likely did have input into what the major features of the next IPhone will be, he isn't there to handhold and polish the product as it is being developed.

beat Exxon in both profit and capitalization

[peter303]

AAPL $12B profit versus XOM $9B Q1. The two generally go in hand-in-hand in market valuations, despite being substantially different businesses: valuable commodity versus high end electronics.

Re:despite all the propaganda

[superwiz]

Compare the difference between Q1'11 through Q2'11 to the difference between Q1'12 through Q2'12. The first one is a rise. The 2nd is a drop. So all this talk of "think of Christmas sales dude" are BS. I am talking about just the iPhone sales (which accounted for 57% of their sales vs 52% in the previous quarter).

So one company with variations of one phone manage to sell more every year with a majority of the profit

They didn't. The rising sales number is because they entered a new market in Q1'11. Within the same markets they have steady declines in sales.

Year to year is the way to do it.

Not if they just entered a new market. The health of the product line is measured by how they fare in the same markets (increased vs decreased market share).

Re:despite all the propaganda

[UnknowingFool]

Compare the difference between Q1'11 through Q2'11 to the difference between Q1'12 through Q2'12. The first one is a rise. The 2nd is a drop. So all this talk of "think of Christmas sales dude" are BS. I am talking about just the iPhone sales (which accounted for 57% of their sales vs 52% in the previous quarter).

First of all you never said anything about iPhone numbers only. We cannot read your mind. Second of all you only mentioned the iPad. Thirdly if you only mean to include iPhone numbers, how can you judge the performance of the entire company based on one product. This is what you wrote:

A short look at the numbers shows that their quarter actually sucked. They sold less units in this quarter than they did in the last quarter. The opposite quarter-over-quarter was true for the same period in '11. Their iPad sales dropped significantly quarter-over-quarter. . .

Lastly, if you did some research you would have known that Apple started selling the Verizon iPhone 4 in February 2011 which opens a brand new market for them. That explains why they saw a spike in sales. Also if you did more research you would have learned that Apple launched the iPad 2 at the end of Q2 which was widely expected. The launched the iPad 3rd gen towards the end of Q2. Anyone looking to buy an iPad would have been waiting for the new one.

They didn't. The rising sales number is because they entered a new market in Q1'11. Within the same markets they have steady declines in sales.

[Citation please]. And please don't link an article riddled with mere speculation about Apple's numbers.

Not if they just entered a new market. The health of the product line is measured by how they fare in the same markets (increased vs decreased market share).

You keep saying this without any qualification about what you mean. Again, we cannot read your mind.

Re:despite all the propaganda

[superwiz]

Actually, it's worse then I thought. The iPhone 4s was released in China and 21 other countries on Jan 13: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/01/04iPhone-4S-Arrives-in-China-on-January-13.html

This is during Q2'12. So they had a drop in sales despite entering new markets.

Re:despite all the propaganda

[UnknowingFool]

So your entire, entire statement boils down to the faulty premise every new country that the iPhone launches must sell exactly the same number of phones as every previous country. That all countries are equal in terms of population that have the money to purchase the iPhone. Please read this list carefully.

Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Botswana, British Virgin Islands, Cameroon, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, China, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Grenada, Guam, Guinea Conakry, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Niger, Senegal, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos and Uganda.

Can you pick which of these countries is likely to have sales of more than a million iPhones a quarter? Possibly only China. Please do some deep analysis before you come up with wild conclusions. Also look at not just iPhones but the whole company.

Re:despite all the propaganda

[superwiz]

Tell you what: you can put your money in their stock if you believe your analysis. And I'll keep thinking they peaked. One of us will look like a fool in about 2 quarters. You can accuse me by putting arguments in mouth which I never made (exactly the same number??? aha. yes, because I say nonsense like that). Do you really think that anyone you ever argue with is so simple minded as to think that "all countries are equal in terms of population that have the money to purchase the iPHone?"

The fact remains that Apple has nothing to offer in this market. Not even in terms of apps. The current paradigm of an app is also exhausted on the iOS platform. So iOS has to either get adopted in a corporate environment, or most iOS developers will migrate to other app markets. With Samsung just passing the mark of becoming the largest phone vendor, it's pretty easy to guess which app market it will be.

You've had a few contradictions in your arguments yourself (no one cares that Apple missed estimates on iPads, but he company is doing great because it beat the estimates on iPhones... hmmm).

There is no point to look at the company as a whole. Without iPhone as the driving platform, iOS is dead. And the computer and iPad sales will die with it.

Re:despite all the propaganda

[UnknowingFool]

Tell you what: you can put your money in their stock if you believe your analysis. And I'll keep thinking they peaked. One of us will look like a fool in about 2 quarters. You can accuse me by putting arguments in mouth which I never made (exactly the same number??? aha. yes, because I say nonsense like that). Do you really think that anyone you ever argue with is so simple minded as to think that "all countries are equal in terms of population that have the money to purchase the iPHone?"

YOU made a statement based on faulty premises and gloom and doom without looking deeply. The crux of your argument was that Apple did poorly because they entered in 21 markets for the iPhone in Q2 and failed to sell well as the holiday season is predicated on the premise that they could sell as many phones in these countries to overcome the drop of the holiday season. Except for one of those 21 countries, it is highly unlikely that Apple could have sold more than a million phones in the quarter in the new countries. You also based the performance of the company based on just the iPhone and not the company overall. You can either accept that wasn't sound logic or not.

The fact remains that Apple has nothing to offer in this market. Not even in terms of apps. The current paradigm of an app is also exhausted on the iOS platform. So iOS has to either get adopted in a corporate environment, or most iOS developers will migrate to other app markets. With Samsung just passing the mark of becoming the largest phone vendor, it's pretty easy to guess which app market it will be.

Um, iOS is being adopted in corporate environments. I don't know where you are living these days. A recent survey says 97% of tablets in enterprises are iPads. If that isn't adoption, you must have a different definition than every one else.

You've had a few contradictions in your arguments yourself (no one cares that Apple missed estimates on iPads, but he company is doing great because it beat the estimates on iPhones... hmmm).

No one cares about analysts estimates because they are almost never right. All the analysts predictions I read FAILED to take into account that Apple was launching a new iPad in that quarter so sales would be done. Some of the analysts are still saying there will be an iPad mini. And then the same of the analysts grossly under estimated the number of iPhone sales. So why do you place so much faith in their numbers when they are wrong often? It's not a contradiction. It's a lack of logic on your part.

There is no point to look at the company as a whole. Without iPhone as the driving platform, iOS is dead. And the computer and iPad sales will die with it.

What kind of rubbish is that? Without the iPhone or iPad, Apple is still hugely profitable. If Apple only sold computers, they still would have had record sales and profits. That's like saying Dell is not worth looking at without consumer laptop sales.

Re:Tiring

[thoughtlover]

Cook is going to run Apple off a balance sheet, Jobs ran Apple via his "visionary" stance.

Not having to pay for legal services in 11 countries definitely saves a ton of money.